Posted
by
timothyon Sunday August 24, 2014 @07:59PM
from the but-they're-australian-dollars dept.

Presto Vivace writes with news of an embarrassing discovery for Rupert Murdoch's News Corp about the company's financial state, which might draw less attention if News Corp hadn't tried to prevent people from using the information: "The existential crisis that has gripped Rupert Murdoch's Australian arm began with a rude discovery just after 2pm on Wednesday afternoon. The Crikey news website had stumbled across some of News Corp's most intimate lingerie, and had just put it all up on the the net. ... The 276-page document is called the Blue Book, a weekly and year-to-date rundown of results at June 30, 2013 for every News Corp business in the country. ... The great newspaper engine which was Rupert Murdoch's original springboard to take over the world was already under stress. In 2013, 70 per cent of its earnings disappeared, leaving operating income precariously balanced at $87.6 million. As Crikey pointed out, trying hard not to gloat, another year even half as bad as 2013 could put News Australia into the red." Crikey took the documents off line after legal threats, but it seems not before business reporters all over the world had a chance to download them."

It is also a public company (Nasdaq:NWS) and, as such, is required to publicly disclose financials. Hiding financial information, and misleading investors, is illegal.

There are very specific rules they have to follow and simply claiming they need to reveal all financial information to the public is pretty much false. I'm not going to disagree with the idea that news corp isn't really news... they're an entertainment company that tells a certain group of people what they want to hear... and makes a lot of money doing it. But this whole notion that they're some sort of evil empire secretly controlling peoples minds? It's a joke... they don't need to convince their viewers of what they're showing them... that's how those viewers already saw the world and Newscorp is playing to that crowd.

All people, everywhere, no matter what political view they have, will search out information that re-enforces their own world view. And make no mistake, we are all wrong. Every single one of us. I've heard just as much ridiculous misguided nonsense come out of left as I've heard come out of the right.

This is exactly why News Corporation got the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott elected on the basis that they would kill the NBN because broadband is killing News Corporation and you need look no further than MySpace to see what kind of internet fuckups they are, bought for $580 million and sold for $35 million. With the 70% dominance in news and a months long propaganda campaign the got corrupt politicians elected who immediately set out to kill broadband in Australia and the news competition it provides. However that blatant propaganda killed the trust of Australian public for Newscorp and Fox not-News et al and they are losing market share all over the place.

claiming they need to reveal all financial information to the public is pretty much false.

Nobody claimed that. They do need to disclose basic financial information, and hiding a 70% drop in earnings from public shareholders is almost certainly illegal.

All people, everywhere, no matter what political view they have, will search out information that re-enforces their own world view.

Not true. I make a specific effort to listen to news sources that conflict with my world view. I know others that do the same. I tend to lean libertarian, but get most of my news from PBS and NPR which tend to view government and collective social action as the solution to most problems.

"A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. "

A couple of things here:- meat inspection would be government interference in the market- wouldn't paying for information cause interference in the free consent between sellers and consumers?- buyers and sellers must each have free acc

All people, everywhere, no matter what political view they have, will search out information that re-enforces their own world view.

Not true. I make a specific effort to listen to news sources that conflict with my world view. I know others that do the same. I tend to lean libertarian, but get most of my news from PBS and NPR which tend to view government and collective social action as the solution to most problems.

I don't know how your answer is insightful. Your reasoning does not invalidate the GP post. Your answer is that you search out for information of the opposite side of your world view which has nothing to do with the GP statement. Do you search out for information of the same world view side you are viewing? If you never and will never do it at all, then you may say that it is not true; otherwise, I still see that the GP statement stands.

But this whole notion that they're some sort of evil empire secretly controlling peoples minds? It's a joke...

Willful ignorance, got it. Controlling media to shape society by providing fabricated opinion is not new. Adam Weishaupt wrote all about this technique back in the late 1700s for exactly the purpose of controlling Governments by controlling citizen opinions. If you are trying to claim that media is public therefor can't be secret, you should really try harder to understand that the opinions and fact that they are used to shape society is what is "secret". You can read documents from the CFR to see direc

Sure, why not?The complaint that usually shows up is that a teenager cracking encryption for lulz gets labeled as a cyberterrorist and is put in jail for longer than a murderer would be while multinational companies gets away with it.While it can be discussed what a reasonable punishment should be the major problem is that the law isn't applied equally among people.My claim is that it is unfair that the rich gets away with a crime that the poor gets punished for. For some reason people misinterpret that as

You link explains my quip nicely (and yes I got the original reference):

"Barbie" is Australian slang for barbecue and the phrase "slip a shrimp on the barbie", for Americans, often evokes images of a fun social gathering under the sun. Australians, however, invariably use the word prawn rather than shrimp.
[emphasis added]

Since the adds were run in the US, where shrimp was the delicious type of crustaceon ready to throw onto afore mentioned cooking surface, that was the right word to use.No doubt, when back here in his native Oz, Hoges reverts back to the more local

Prawns are larger in size, and have larger legs with claws on three pairs. They have branching gills. Shrimp are smaller, have shorter legs and have claws only on two pairs. Their gills are lamellar, i.e. plate-like.

Prawns and shrimp are both decapod crustaceans i.e. that they have exoskeletons and 10 legs. They can be found in salt water and fresh water all over the world, typically swimming in search of food. Both shrimp and prawns tend to stay near the ocean floor. They also have similar flavors, and come in a wide range of sizes from minuscule to quite large.

In commercial farming and fisheries, the terms shrimp and prawn are often used interchangeably. But of late, the term "prawn" only signifies freshwater forms of palaemonids and "shrimp" for the marine penaeids.

In the United Kingdom, the word “prawn” is more common on menus than “shrimp”; while it’s the opposite in North America. The term “prawn” is also loosely used to describe any large shrimp, especially those that come 15 (or fewer) to the pound (such as “king prawns”, yet sometimes known as “jumbo shrimp”).

Australia and some other Commonwealth nations follow this British usage to an even greater extent, using the word “prawn” almost exclusively. When Australian comedian Paul Hogan used the phrase, “I'll slip an extra shrimp on the barbie for you” in an American television advertisement, it was intended to make what he was saying easier for his American audience to understand, and was thus a deliberate distortion of what an Australian would typically say.

In Britain very small crustaceans with a brownish shell are called shrimp, and are used to make potted shrimp. They are also used in dishes where they are not the primary ingredient.

Prawns and shrimp are two different things. From another source:

Shrimp have branching gills, a side plate that overlays segments in front and behind, and carry their eggs outside of their bodies beneath their tails.

Prawns have lameller gills, side plates that overlap tile-like from front to back, and carry their eggs inside their bodies near their tails.

So indeed, we've established that Australian English is less expressive than American English, at least when it comes to these crustaceans.

It's not nothing. It's a glimmer of hope for us here in Australia, that that piece of shit Murdoch could eventually lose his near monopoly in Australian newspapers - and, therefore, a significant part of his ability to manipulate the government. And not before time.

It's not nothing. It's a glimmer of hope for us here in Australia, that that piece of shit Murdoch could eventually lose his near monopoly in Australian newspapers - and, therefore, a significant part of his ability to manipulate the government. And not before time.

News Ltd owns the only national daily paper, as well as the only daily paper in four state capitals, one territory capital, and a number of large regional centres - of the capitals, only Melbourne, Sydney, and Canberra have competing daily papers. Admittedly, that covers nearly half the population - but that leaves a massive proportion of Australia dominated by Murdoch.

In the US, the newspaper industry has been flailing for decades. TV was eating their lunch even before the Internet did. The national "newspapers of record" still have some sway, but they no longer swing elections. They are still the last best hope of serious journalism as the fourth estate, but there's just not much left of it.

In the US, it's not even fishwrap; people just don't buy them. They do get it online, but what little actual news is in that stream is mostly thinly rewritten

Can only speak from personal experience, but most people I encounter read either of the main rags online as a way to pass the time at work. I'm a contractor so work in many different office, and every office I go I see either Fairfax (smh.com.au) or News (news.com.au) on screen of worker bees. I can only imagine how many man-hours are wasted on this activity every day across the country.

It's hardly surprising for a company to hold its financial results close to its chest, but this is made more delicious given how much time they spend pointing out the downsizing of rival Fairfax Media.

Fairfax papers, especially, have suffered from the internet while News Corp has soldiered on, but it was only a matter of time. Being more left-wing, Fairfax's demographic is younger and more inclined to embrace new technology. As they age, and likely become more conservative, they will still consume news online rather than return to dead tree papers.

I'm pretty sure I heard this years ago. Murdoch has been subsidizing his original paper out of nostalgia.
What a non-story though. They only made multi-millions and if they keep only making multi-millions, one day, in the far future, they could possibly go in the red.
The government does that every day.

Harlequin Enterprises Limited engages in the publishing and sale of books for women worldwide. The company publishes printed and electronic books in various languages in the areas of romance, fiction, nonfiction, young adult novels, erotic literature, and fantasy. The company was founded in 1949 and is based in Don Mills, Canada with additional offices in Toronto, New York, London, Tokyo, Milan, Sydney, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Athens, Budapest, Granges-Paccot*, Warsaw, Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai, and Istanbul.

Harlequin Enterprises Limited engages in the publishing and sale of books for women worldwide. The company publishes printed and electronic books in various languages in the areas of romance, fiction, nonfiction, young adult novels, erotic literature, and fantasy. The company was founded in 1949 and is based in Don Mills, Canada with additional offices in Toronto, New York, London, Tokyo, Milan, Sydney, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Athens, Budapest, Granges-Paccot*, Warsaw, Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai, and Istanbul.

This is neither really news or particularly surprising. The News behemoth went through a restructure recently which pushed all its low performing assets into a different vehicle. Basically Rupert is in love with newspapers and he continues to support them even though the ROI is not there. When he leaves expect the papers to disappear as well.

I'm surprised no one else pointed out, but this coincides directly with the timing of their paywalls. The paywalls on Murdoch's sites went up early 2013. TFA says that it's primarily a drop in advertising revenue, so is this proof that paywalls result in a loss of money, due to a loss of advertising incoming. I know personally I have stopped visiting the Courier Mail website due to the paywall.

I haven't visited/. for years as I moved away from technology however I saw this in my newsfeed and gave it a look.

What happened to the site which used to have one of the most decent commentary sections on the Internet?

Left, right or other didn't used to matter, the facts would be laid out and debated intelligently, it would have never been reduced to this sort of bickering, troll bait comments that are full of lies.

Such a shame this place has been reduced to just another site full of the same.